How does a Scientologist dodge a bullet?

A Scientologist, a true believer, lives in continual cognitive dissonance. When faced with a dangerous question challenging their beliefs, they resort to all kinds of mental and debate tricks to avoid having their belief bubble bursted.

Our resident Ninja, Katageek summed it all up in a nice algorithm:

Change the subject, write a bunch and pretend you answered the question and IGNORE THE DANGEROUS QUESTION.

If that doesn’t work, blame the fault on the questioner in a loving attitude and help him/her find the mistake they have made that doesn’t let them see “the truth” AND IGNORE THE DANGEROUS QUESTION.

If that doesn’t work, blame the questioner in a HARSH condescending attitude for moral or logical flaws and IGNORE THE DANGEROUS QUESTION.

If that doesn’t work, re-define the terms so that the question no longer has any bite AND USE THAT REFRAMING TO IGNORE THE DANGEROUS QUESTION.

If that doesn’t work, FACE THE DANGEROUS QUESTION but minimize it as unimportant in the big picture (EXAMPLE: “LRH wasn’t perfect but his tech is workable”).

If that doesn’t work, keep bouncing between these options and never acknowledge the question or its actual ramifications.

When the period is over, go warm up to a source that confirms the core beliefs and let the damage bar on your brain’s screen recharge, and then return to the conversation and START ALL OVER.

If EVER you have to face a dangerous question AND what it actually means regarding a sacred belief, always return to your “wins” about how it worked for you. Nobody can touch that.

Be unconscious that your belief stays the same and that you shift criteria based on what group or person is saying that either supports or detracts from the core belief. EXAMPLE: When talking with hard core believers, you believe some facts as literal, but when talking with critics or liberal believers ONE CHANGES BELIEFS TEMPORARILY TO PROTECT THE CORE BELIEFS AND NOT REMEMBER THAT YOU FLIP-FLOPPED.

While general, common questions about LRH or Scn can (and do) bring about this phenomena, it does not compare to confronting your friends with the harsh reality of what it means to be a member of the cherch. Allow me to explain…

For years the MAA worked hard to force my spouse to divorce me (and subsequently break up our family). The future of my children were directly threatened.

I finally broke down and laid it out for a couple of hardcore Scn friends of ours, people I’ve known for decades. In their face – Do you think it’s right that the MAA is trying to break-up my family? No response (literally, no response, nothing said, no emotion). I continue – Do you think that is an ethical thing to do? No response. I’m simply trying to appeal to their humanity, their sense of right and wrong. I won’t stop – Well, do you?

Finally a response – It doesn’t matter. That was their response!

What do you mean “it doesn’t matter?”

It doesn’t matter what I think. It doesn’t whether it is right or wrong. It just is.

I was speechless. Here were two OTs, veteran Scnists, that I considered to be close friends. Completely incapable of taking a moral stand. This cuts to the bone.

I knew right then that I was not a Scnist. No way would I allow myself to become so compromised, so spineless, so morally ambivalent, so spiritually bankrupt.

Good timing. I was privvy to a conversation just last evening where someone was cornered and asked a question point blank, yes or no. To have answered no would have seriously weakened his position. To have answered yes would have been worse and ended the conversation. So, he danced around it which only made him look worse. Scientology lawyers are really pieces of work and that’s all I’m going to say about it at this time.

“I was privy to a conversation just last evening where someone was cornered and asked a question point blank, yes or no. To have answered no would have seriously weakened his position. To have answered yes would have been worse and ended the conversation. So, he danced around it which only made him look worse. Scientology lawyers are really pieces of work…”

Dan, you are one astute individual. You’ve just summed up in a word what the list in the blog post actually lists out – i.e. all the potential reactions of a poster who is pro-Scientology and attempts in most blogs to participate.

Yes – in a word, this is a list of the reactions of a person who is…cornered.

It can also be summed up in a sentence: You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Katageek’s observations are spot-on, which is ironic since he himself does not direct these accusations at any individual pro-Scn poster personally – he is more courteous and kind than to do so, even if he has not observed what underlies such reactions. And, notably, he is a never-in. I guess you can take the CoS Scientologist out of the church but you can’t take the church out of a CoS Scientologist.

It is a summary of the reactions of person who is desperate to be right. But in order to become better in any area, a person must admit to being wrong. When I coach people and help people improve in an area, they first realise they are wrong in that area before they can improve. No admitting to being wrong equals no gain.

“But in order to become better in any area, a person must admit to being wrong.”

But when it’s only your opinion that the person is having trouble in an area, and not theirs, it isn’t going to work to try to get them to “admit it.” And when you (the plural you) continue to insist on telling them what the area even is by equating CoS Scn with core Scn – which is also your opinion and not theirs and is actually a Straw Man argument – oh yes, they may start to protest.

And then, if you add to the above your opinions of how wrong they are in their interpretations in the subject area, although you fail to rationally demonstrate that and you liberally throw in personal remarks and generalities – and when they protest all the Ad Hom and ask for specifics on the generalities, you variously call it cognitive dissonance, “insistence on being right” and Q&A – and basically corner them – well, yes, they may start to “dodge” and try to find ways to protest without it being twisted and used against them.

And we end up with the list of reactions in the blog post. All because rational discussion is not adhered to, thus potentially defeating your own purpose, whatever merit it may have, as you only decrease their willingness to be in comm with you.

Marildi : “But when it’s only your opinion that the person is having trouble in an area, and not theirs, it isn’t going to work to try to get them to “admit it.” And when you (the plural you) continue to insist on telling them what the area even is by equating CoS Scn with core Scn – which is also your opinion and not theirs and is actually a Straw Man argument – oh yes, they may start to protest.”

“And then, if you add to the above your opinions of how wrong they are in their interpretations in the subject area, although you fail to rationally demonstrate that and you liberally throw in personal remarks and generalities – and when they protest all the Ad Hom and ask for specifics on the generalities, you variously call it cognitive dissonance, “insistence on being right” and Q&A – and basically corner them – well, yes, they may start to “dodge” and try to find ways to protest without it bein g twisted and used against them.”

“And we end up with the list of reactions in the blog post. All because rational discussion is not adhered to, thus potentially defeating your own purpose, whatever merit it may have, as you only decrease their willingness to be in comm with you.”

Peter : Damn, Marildi ; that was a fucking incredible defense what you came up with right there. I might agree or not with it , but that’s besides the point. The point is that THAT’S the way debate is done. Honestly , you would have TOTALLY disarmed me with that one. I would have to think REAL hard on how to defeat you on that one. I don’t think that I would have been able to. That would have been the perfect “Shut up, Peter”. :-)))

I wasn’t invalidating you the other day when I validated you for a similar strategy in debate. I honestly wasn’t. You should see a great movie called “The Great Debaters” to understand why I said that to you the other day. You just put up an argument in the correct comparable magnitude to that of the OP, but analyzing the other side of the coin. That was brilliant indeed! , REGARDLESS whether I agree or not with it in content as such.

Peter : “Damn, Marildi ; that was a fucking incredible defense what you came up with right there. I might agree or not with it , but that’s besides the point. The point is that THAT’S the way debate is done.”

Thanks, but I can’t agree that “the way debate is done” has nothing to do with the content and whether or not it is valid in its own right – and thus can be agreed with – but rather how you can win a debate point.

And I wouldn’t admire a debater who wins a point with an argument that isn’t on its own rational and valid – if that’s what you mean.

Nor can I agree that an opposing debater should try to figure out how to defeat the argument – by hook or by crook – when he knows the argument “as such” is valid. And in a real debate, with unbiased judges, that debater would lose points.

Peter: “You just put up an argument in the correct comparable magnitude to that of the OP, but analyzing the other side of the coin. That was brilliant indeed! REGARDLESS whether I agree or not with it in content as such.”

I must add that you did a very good job of hedging your bet and/or demonstrating finesse in avoiding to step on anybody’s toes – regardless of whether or not their toes deserve stepping on.

In any case, I very much appreciate you stepping forward with the validation. I underestimated you. 😉

Marildi : “Thanks, but I can’t agree that “the way debate is done” has nothing to do with the content and whether or not it is valid in its own right – and thus can be agreed with – but rather how you can win a debate point.”

Peter : I fully agree with that ; perhaps, I failed at making myself clear enough. You see , Marildi, I think there are always two sides of a coin in most debates. Seldom you find an invariable unquestionable “fact” except perhaps in pure classical science , you know. I am talking about “How much does something weights ?” , “What speed ?” , “What angle ?” , “What force ?” , “How energy got used and transformed ?” ; you know ; that sort of things.

Life is mostly an infinity-valued proposition, instead of a “Yes v/s No” one , or a “White v/s Black” one. Even though most debates seems as two-valued for both debaters , the fact is that that is seldom the case. Most of them have many angles and viewpoints from which to look at them. As thus , the “Validity” of an argument is frequently a subjective issue that depends on a multiplicity of variables. Most “truths” are only “Relative Truths”. “Relative” to events, experiences, viewpoints, education, moral values , customs, etc.

We can debate for a hundred hours regarding whether or not LRH was only a con man with evil intentions towards his fellow beings , or if he was just fixated on ideas he thought were the best for people , and that his OWN reality on what he thought Scn could accomplished was as exactly as stated in his writings w/out no intention to deceive anyone. And we might never agree on it.

In the above case ,who really have the “valid” points ? It might look to you that you do. It might look to me, that I do. But the fact of the matter is that we BOTH would have valid points if looked at through our own different experiences with the subject , from our own educational background , from our own experiences in life, from our own codes of conduct, etc.

Your reply to Geir WAS VALID. Perfectly valid from your viewpoint. Perfectly valid for me , even if I disagree with some of it. You see, my lady , that one disagree with it doesn’t necessarily makes it any less valid. Geir and you BOTH had valid arguments, each unique on its own.

I think than in real life there isn’t such a thing as “This is the reality, the actuality of this or that” , you know, there isn’t such a thing as “This is the ‘universal’ truth about this or that”. But what we DO have is AGREEMENT on realities ; that’s what we have, and that’s mechanically achieved through duplication. And “Duplication” isn’ “I agree with you” , or “You are right”. Duplication simply is “I have in my mind the same concept that you have is yours , as I made a copy of such concept in my mind”. In others words , you have a conceptual understanding of what the other person meant by his/her communication , REGARDLESS whether you agree or not with the “arguments” of that communication.

Marildi : “And I wouldn’t admire a debater who wins a point with an argument that isn’t on its own rational and valid – if that’s what you mean.”

Peter : No , of course that wasn’t what I meant. But who is to say what is really “rational” and/or “valid” ? , as those are frequently subjective concepts. It is all relative , I think. I think that a much better strategy than labeling (I am guilty of that too, too damn frequently) some argument as “not valid” or “irrational” , would be the one where we attempt to make an exact copy of what the other communicated about , you know. “Why did he/she say that ?” , “What did he mean by that ?” , “Why is he thinking what he/she is thinking ?” , “What are his/her intentions behind it ?” ; that sort of thing.

Marildi : “Nor can I agree that an opposing debater should try to figure out how to defeat the argument – by hook or by crook – when he knows the argument “as such” is valid.”

Peter : I fully agree on that as well. Intellectual dishonesty has no place in debates.

Marildi : “And in a real debate, with unbiased judges, that debater would lose points.”

Peter : Of course he will , and he should.

TC : “You just put up an argument in the correct comparable magnitude to that of the OP, but analyzing the other side of th e coin. That was brilliant indeed! REGARDLESS whether I agree or not with it in content as such.”

Marildi : “I must add that you did a very good job of hedging your bet and/or demonstrating finesse in avoiding to step on anybody’s toes – regardless of whether or not their toes deserve stepping on.”

Peter : Jjjjj , thanks. Actually, I saw both arguments as valid. See my comments above as to why. Perhaps the way those arguments were communicated and made known had errors in BOTH debaters , but the arguments themselves have both validity.

Marildi : “In any case, I very much appreciate you stepping forward with the validation. I underestimated you. 😉 ”

Peter : You are most welcome , and thanks! 🙂

I have a question for you , if you don’t mind me asking it ; and I would like a straight and honest answer with no “fear to hurt” considerations of any kind as I can take probably anything in life. Deal ? Here it is : “Did you feel my validation to you was insincere ? If “yes” , why ? I am just curious , and want to duplicate you.

I couldn’t find a message in my inbox to use its “reply” button to respond to your comments after your video. So here it is.

Marildi : “Peter, as regards your little dissertation on relativity and the different points of view of individuals, no lecture is needed as these are things we all know about.”

Peter : Apparently not ; not “everybody knows” that , and Rinder’s blog (and others blogs as well) is the best example of that. If “everybody knows that” , then we wouldn’t have so many long and heated arguments as we frequently have here including mine , as our knowing about the relativity of truth , would make us more tolerant to divergent views , don’t you think ? And what acception of the word “lecture” is the one you are using there ? Just curious.

Marildi : “And this isn’t the context or premise of a debate or its purpose. It’s more like this quote of Karl Popper:

“I may be wrong and you may be right and, by an effort, we may get nearer the truth.”

Peter : Yes, only problem with that is that truth is frequently RELATIVE as I said, and thus what we are actually trying to get to , is to an AGREED REALITY. A person frequently “wins” a debate as he got more people to “AGREE” with his arguments. As I said before , there is a differece between a “fact” and “truth”. “The girl arrived at school today” is a fact. “Scientology is very workable” is a REALTIVE truth. “The man finished his project today” is a fact. “LRH was a humanitarian” is a relative truth, and more close to an opinion. “Misunderstood words causes physical reactions” is a fact. “Cause over life” is a relative truth.

Most debates are not about facts, but about relative truths, that’s WHY a debate is needed in the first place. If they were about facts , then they would not be needed. A debate’s end product isn’t “Truth” , but an agreed upon relative truth. So I stand by my previous post which, by the way , was intended to treat you with more tolerance, understanding, and more in the line of a gentleman. And tha’s the perfect example of how the “What was his/her INTENTION ?” fits in the equation of it all.

TC : “…attempt to make an exact copy of what the other communicated about, you know. ‘WHY did he/she say that?’ ‘What did he MEAN by that’, ‘WHY is he thinking what he/she is thinking?’ ‘What are his/her INTENTIONS behind it?’; that sort of thing.” (Emphasis in caps is mine.)

Marildi : “With the exception of making an exact copy of what the other has actually said, those are questions that have no bearing on the validity of the person’s argument and have no place in a debate or discussion.”

Peter : NOT AT ALL. Communication is composed of MANY factors besides its substance. In fact , according to LRH , comm is composed of 21 different factors. INTENTION is part of it. “WHY did he/she mean by that ?” , IS part of the duplication process as well. I am sorry , but I don’t subscribe to your apparent definition of “debate”. It seems to me that you are confusing a debate with a scientific methodology , a “scientific” type of process. Well , it isn’t necessarily, and frequently it is not.

Marildi : “They would fall into the category of Ad Hom – which is a fallacious argument that attacks not the other debater’s argument but his personal character and motives.”

Peter : You obviously misduplicated my post , proving thus my same premises and argument about “duplication” of consideration and intention. The “intentions” of a debater are important to determine why he is using his principal line of logic. The line of “logic” frequently has emotional connotations to it. You just can’t separate reason from emotion. It doesn’t work that way in actual practice.

Marildi : “Incidentally, the times you have “read into” things I said, there was no truth to the conclusions you came to, and it only got in the way of the exchange.”

Peter : Only because I ASSUMED things instead of duplicating you. If I would have duplicated you , I would not have had misread your intentions.

TC : “Did you feel my validation to you was insincere? If “yes”, why? I am just curious, and want to duplicate you.”

Marildi : “I had no question at all that your validation was sincere. And that was based on duplicating your actual words.”

Peter : Thanks. I am just curious ; your tone/attitude towards me when you posted that video seems to be a little different to your tone/attitude towards me in this last reply of yours. Am I mistaken about that ?

Marildi : “Peter, as regards your little dissertation on relativity and the different points of view of individuals, no lecture is needed as these are things we all know about.”

Peter: “If ‘everybody knows that,’ then we wouldn’t have so many long and heated arguments as we frequently have here including mine, as our knowing about the relativity of truth would make us more tolerant to divergent views, don’t you think?”

Not necessarily, because even though most people know about it, they still get into long and heated arguments – as you admitted about yourself.

I would agree that it could make a difference in the tone of the discussion, but that is not pertinent to the fact that a debate is simply “a discussion of opposing views” regardless of the fact that the views are relative – since they always are.

Peter: “And what acception of the word “lecture” is the one you are using there? Just curious.”

Peter: “…I stand by my previous post which, by the way, was intended to treat you with more tolerance, understanding, and more in the line of a gentleman. And that’s the perfect example of how the ‘What was his/her INTENTION?’ fits in the equation of it all.”

Again, the style and good manners of a poster is a separate issue from the actual substance of the post. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable and appreciated. So thanks. 🙂

Peter: “I am sorry, but I don’t subscribe to your apparent definition of ‘debate.’ It seems to me that you are confusing a debate with a scientific methodology, a ‘scientific’ type of process. Well, it isn’t necessarily, and frequently it is not.”

Marildi: “Incidentally, the times you have “read into” things I said, there was no truth to the conclusions you came to, and it only got in the way of the exchange.”

Peter : “Only because I ASSUMED things instead of duplicating you. If I would have duplicated you, I would not have had misread your intentions.”

Right, Peter, that’s exactly my point about “reading into.” Debate is about exchanging ideas that are expressed in words – not what we speculate is the “real meaning.”

Peter: “I am just curious; your tone/attitude towards me when you posted that video seems to be a little different to your tone/attitude towards me in this last reply of yours. Am I mistaken about that?”

Yes. That post was in reply to Geir after he had made a personal remark about you regarding your “love and hate.” My reply of “Welcome to my world” was a way of saying something like “Now you know how I feel.” And the video was sort of playing along with Geir’s comment. Sorry for the confusion.

There’s been no change in my attitude toward you. However, as a friendly suggesgtion I would advise you to shorten your posts. You make so many conjectures and assumptions about what I think and what I don’t know and need to be informed about – most of which I feel misses the mark and sort of puts me in a position where I am forced to refute many things. But that would get into a dozen additional discussions that I’m not interested in doing. Keep it short for others too, so people won’t find it necessary to even do a TL;DR. 😉

Btw, this may be the last exchange between us for a while, but it has nothing personal to do with you. It’s my own circumstances.

P.S
You seems to have a problem with the concept of “We can always agree to disagree on something”. And I am sorry for assuming that you do , but thinking back at all your posts , and specially of your las reply to me , lead me to assume that. I myself had that difficulty up until VERY recently. I couldn’t understand that 2 apparently conflicting views do not need to be opposed at all, but that they can co-live, co-exist together. The idea is , of course, to try to get to a commonly agreed reality as close as we can through being willing to duplicate the comms of others. And if we DO duplicate what is at the other’s mind by first being WILLING to do so, and secondly , by ASKING questions and clarifying originations instead of ASSUMING things , then the chances are that a common reality, a relative truth, will be agreed upon.

But this INSISTENCE that the other terminal SEE our viewpoint ; this insistence that the other terminal UNDERSTAND that we are right about our assertions, rapidly divorces from reason at the speed of light. I’ve been there, done that. Anyway , just something for you to think about and to examine if you are interested in doing so.

Peter, as regards your little dissertation on relativity and the different points of view of individuals, no lecture is needed as these are things we all know about. And this isn’t the context or premise of a debate or its purpose. It’s more like this quote of Karl Popper:

“I may be wrong and you may be right and, by an effort, we may get nearer the truth.”

Peter: “…attempt to make an exact copy of what the other communicated about, you know. ‘WHY did he/she say that?’ ‘What did he MEAN by that’, ‘WHY is he thinking what he/she is thinking?’ ‘What are his/her INTENTIONS behind it?’; that sort of thing.” (Emphasis in caps is mine.)

With the exception of making an exact copy of what the other has actually said, those are questions that have no bearing on the validity of the person’s argument and have no place in a debate or discussion. They would fall into the category of Ad Hom – which is a fallacious argument that attacks not the other debater’s argument but his personal character and motives.

Incidentally, the times you have “read into” things I said, there was no truth to the conclusions you came to, and it only got in the way of the exchange.

Peter: “Did you feel my validation to you was insincere? If “yes”, why? I am just curious, and want to duplicate you.”

I had no question at all that your validation was sincere. And that was based on duplicating your actual words. 😉

When I was a Scientologist, I wanted to talk about that stuff I had learned in SCN. And even receive arguments etc. Alas, it was most often impossible/frustrating. The flag ‘DANGER – BRAINWASHING – MONEY’ was all that I received. The times I had an intelligent discussion were less that my hand’s fingers. Eventually I had people turn against me with no provocation whatsoever. The idea was I ought to feel ashamed/guilty for being into SCN.

There certainly is an intention to keep SCNists isolated, but it doesn’t stem from the COS, or only from the COS. Good intentions or not, those fanatics never helped me with anything, for I never submitted to that ‘quit SCN or else we will hate you’. I had to spend a few years inside and then quit by myself.

I don’t recommend anyone should go to that Church. But to have people who have no idea what it is about tell me about brainwashing is funny. Specially when it is people that we went through compulsory, enforced education together. Where we got reprimanded for not being able to repeat the contents of books we never chose to study.

I don’t think science and scientific thinking are like that, so you will make wrong and attack whomever disagrees with you, afterwards. Science got it’s good name because it tried to operate independently from established mindsets, that even prosecuted it.

I don’t want any established mindsets, no matter what those are. And even a good willing mindset could become evil that way.

Spot on, Katageek. I was acting like this til I got myself de-programmed.

Geir: When faced with a dangerous question challenging their beliefs, they resort to all kinds of mental and debate tricks to avoid having their belief bubble bursted.

This gets drilled very early with the first drill “no-answer” and is honed when studying how to handle ’black PR’ with the PTS/SP references. As time goes on one learns how to weasel around, doge and reject unpleasant questions and ‘attack the attacker’. The most skilled are the OSA spokespersons who get drill to perfection and are so persuasive and slick that only an ex or very knowledgeable critic can recognize the slickness.

Hubbard, to inhibit scrutiny and to protect his lies, even went so far as to label ALL opponents and critics as criminals with evil purposes who don’t confront their past or being a PTS (there are so many categories of PTSes) under the spell of the ‘SP’. Scn, practiced with Hubbard’s KSW, with all its ‘ethics’ and ’justice’ procedures is simply a fascistic regime, some workable methods mixed with Orwellian mental manipulation.

When the cognitive dissonance grows the ‘certainty’ (honed arrogance) that the persons who are asking these questions are inferior and don’t know and are not up to the level, reality and perceptions of the initiated. It’s not unlike the superiority complex of the conquistadors and religious fanatics towards the heathens and disbelievers (although some non-believers can show just as much fanatism as the believers, rejecting every statement as invalid).

“If that doesn’t work, FACE THE DANGEROUS QUESTION but minimize it as unimportant in the big picture (EXAMPLE: “LRH wasn’t perfect but his tech is workable”).”

“I know LRH wasn’t perfect , but he left us a great legacy” ; that’s one I hear a lot from Scientologists , as Katageek wrote , intended to minimize the question as unimportant in the greater context.

And this one : “If EVER you have to face a dangerous question AND what it actually means regarding a sacred belief, always return to your “wins” about how it worked for you. Nobody can touch that.” is another one I hear a lot from them.

And I am not talking about ‘hardcore” strict KSW followers ; I am talking about “Liberal Scientologists” already having been exposed to the critics’s arguments in the Net or in books. Those two “defenses” above , is what they frequently use.

Helping people outperform themselves

I explore the potential of free will. I help people exercise their potential and achieve what they want.

Here you will find creations of art, music, fiction, philosophy, programming and other technical stuff, HP calculators, thought provoking blog posts and much more. You may use everything on this blog for any purpose as long as you give due credit.

There are lots of discussions on this blog. The easiest way to follow a discussion that interests you is to subscribe to that blog post's comments and reply via the e-mail you get.